Saturday letters: Church politics, insider talk, norms ignored

President Donald Trump delivers remarks during a dinner for Evangelical leadership in the State Dining Room of the White House Aug. 27, 2018 in Washington, D.C.

Photo: Olivier Douliery, MBR / TNS

Church politics

Regarding “Allegiance” letter (Page A35, Sept. 2), the writer states that “evangelical allegiance is not to politics but to the Word of God and to His spirit within us and among us.” That may have been true once upon a time. It is well known that in 2016 many evangelical preachers voted for and encouraged their flocks to vote for Donald Trump. Best known perhaps is Franklin Graham, whose ties to the Trump administration run deep.

I have experienced this political support for Trump and the Republican Party within my own denomination (The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod) to the extent that as a Democratic congregant I no longer feel comfortable among my fellow worshipers. I have searched but so far am unable to find a Protestant church that still honors the principle of separation of church and state and adheres to the evangelical ideals that the writer expressed.

Mark Turner, Houston

Insider talk

Regarding “Anonymous column stokes outrage by Trump” (Page A10, Thursday), my summation of the anonymous writer’s column is this: In some areas, the president is mentally and morally unfit to be president; we are trying to shepherd him from hurting the nation, but there were bright spots such as deregulation, tax reform and a more robust military.

Some say this was a gutless act because this person should come forward and get the facts out in the open. The question would be where would he go for resolution? When Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., was asked to respond to the op-ed, he said he was not surprised by the content and that it was what most of us determined to be the situation from day one.

So if senators are aware of the president’s weaknesses and potential dangers but have chosen to do nothing, how would a senior administration official be able to affect a public resolution? Many Republicans seem willing to imply that the ends do justify the means.

Ron Curtis, Houston

Norms ignore

President Trump has called the alleged White House insider gutless for writing the anonymous opinion piece in The New York Times depicting efforts by White House staff to derail some of the chief executive’s more calamitous inclinations. For a high-ranking member of an administration to do so would have been unheard of in past administrations, and if a staff member could not support the president’s policies, he or she would have been expected to resign.

But Trump has trampled most norms of conduct pertaining to the office of the presidency, so his own contempt for those norms may lie at the heart of this situation.

Tom Moore, Katy

Don’t hide

I don’t disagree with what the anonymous author says about President Trump, but I do have an issue with the column being anonymous. The message is important enough to be escalated to Congress for immediate action. By choosing to publish it anonymously, The Times gave Trump the ability to simply label it more “fake news.”

Had I written the column out of the belief that the country is facing a serious problem that needs immediate attention, I would have insisted that The Times include my name. That way, readers could have decided for themselves whether the content is credible or not.